It is also a binding obligation of theĬompany to issue its policy in accordance with the terms and conditions of Commitment to Insure (Interim Title Insurance Binder)Ī commitment to insure, also known as an interim title insurance binder, isĪ report showing the status of the title and the exceptions, if any, which Consequently we are filingĪn amendment to our current rates deleting the following language:ġ.
Interpretation of what may be charged on Line 1104. Show a charge on Line 1104 of the HUD-1 and be in compliance with the Administration's The Maryland InsuranceĪdministration now advises us that under our existing filing agents cannot Specify a particular amount for a commitment/binder fee. Maryland Insurance Administration requires that a fee be charged but does not Stewart Title Guaranty Company has always taken the position that any feeĬharged for the preparation of a commitment (binder) is a work charge collectedĪnd is to be retained by its policy issuing agents. This case has been appealed to the Circuit Court. Testified that had the excess fees been categorized as a placement or preparationįee and shown on another line of the HUD-1, they would have been acceptable. It was noted that the Associate Commissioner InĪddition, the agent was ordered to refund the excess fees collected on Lineġ104 to over 1,300 insureds whom the Maryland Insurance Administration alleges Or commitment fee in excess of the amount filed with and approved by it. Proceeded to assess a fine of $10,000 against the agent for charging a binder That no fee other than that which the title insurer had filed and approvedĬould be charged on Line 1104 of the HUD-1. The Maryland Insurance Administration narrowly defined a commitment fee (binderįee) under Line 1104 as an insurance product and not a work charge.
The Maryland Insurance Administration for Barrister Title's title insurer. The charge shown on Line 1104 of the HUD-1 (i.e., binder fee) where the subjectĪgent incorporated a preparation fee which exceeded the amount approved by Maryland Insurance Administration Case 377-12/95), an issue arose regarding In its adjudication of a complaint filed against Barrister Title Services (see In connection with a recent ruling by the Maryland Insurance Administration
0 kommentar(er)
